Re: [unhosted] Internet-Draft-Draft

On 27 November 2012 15:18, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Do you know if the authors are aware of the LDP WG?
>

I believe the authors are aware that work is going on with LDP, though
perhaps not all of the intimate details.

Certainly there are elements of linked data being reused in some of the
apps I've seen.  So perhaps there could be a useful overlap between the two
efforts.

CC: Michiel, Francois


>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 08:49, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> FYI: an IETF style spec underway for client side apps talking to data
> servers ... perhaps there is some overlap with LDP
>
> https://michielbdejong.com/spec.txt
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <michiel@michielbdejong.com>
> Date: 26 November 2012 12:04
> Subject: [unhosted] Internet-Draft-Draft
> To: unhosted@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hi! here is a draft of our Internet Draft:
> https://michielbdejong.com/spec.txt. The changes compared to 2012.04 are:
> * storage-first is mentioned as a "MAY" at the end for servers, but a
> "SHOULD" for apps (remoteStorage.js would handle this).
> * the storage_api parameter is updated to the name of the I-D.
> * the root scopes are renamed from ":r" and ":rw" to the more
> understandable "root:r" and "root:rw".
> * the "Last-Modified" header is renamed to the more correct "ETag". Since
> these are all textual changes and not functional ones, there is no need for
> any existing storage servers to update any of these things, but as i
> already discussed with Niklas, remoteStorage.js would start supporting both
> 2012.04 and this version.
> Comments very welcome!
> Cheers,
> Michiel.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>